someone up-thread was going on about macgill being better than kumble - thats absolute bollocks. macgill leaked pressure like a blown gasket. kumble had the ability to induce false strokes through a combination of imposing, combative attitude and sheer, bloody-minded presence. i watched a lot of him growing up and he was always relentless and never gave up. got a lot of wickets because of that. and he also induced false strokes from batsmen against other bowlers. the fact that the fellas on the other end didnt capitalise is another story.

i very rarely remember kumble getting a proper tonking. whereas thats one of the main things i associate with macgill. and he was able to get away with it, to a large extent, owing to the excellence of the bowlers around him.

kumble is hands down the third best spinner of his generation and a class apart from the likes of saqlain, macgill, paul strang, mushtaq ahmed and daniel vettori.

and prince ews,

if the word better, in this context, isnt linked to actual performance then its kind of meaningless isnt it?

if the word better, in this context, isnt linked to actual performance then its kind of meaningless isnt it?

Yeah, it is. Kumble certainly had a better career than MacGill, and history will record him as the superior Test bowler.

My point was - and it's only a hypothetical opinion that can neither be proven nor disproven - I think MacGill would've had the better career if he had the same opportunities. He achieved a higher level of skill with his bowling AFAIC and would've been more effective across a long career than Kumble if he had the chance. I can't really back it up with anything because it's just based upon watching them bowl. I have no qualms with people saying Kumble was better based on him having a better Test career and that's how I like to judge players anyway if we're going for a uniform rule.

Yeah, it is. Kumble certainly had a better career than MacGill, and history will record him as the superior Test bowler.

My point was - and it's only a hypothetical opinion that can neither be proven nor disproven - I think MacGill would've had the better career if he had the same opportunities. He achieved a higher level of skill with his bowling AFAIC and would've been more effective across a long career than Kumble if he had the chance. I can't really back it up with anything because it's just based upon watching them bowl. I have no qualms with people saying Kumble was better based on him having a better Test career and that's how I like to judge players anyway if we're going for a uniform rule.

To be honest I put MacGill above Kumble in terms of ability too - obviously, didn't have the same career through no fault of his own. MacGill was an incredible wrist-spinner and got more turn than Warne, even. Was very attacking but lacked the consistency of Warne, so his average would have suffered at the expense of his SR.